Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador withdraw asylum

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

Pretty much. Like any other country when the offender is not within their jurisdiction.

Except the US sees itself as having a natural right to breach the sovereignty of other nations. In the likely event that Assange is let go, there's every chance he'll be targetted for state-ordered kidnapping - sorry, "extraordinary rendition" - so he'll have to flee to some backarse of nowhere anyway.

The only reason he didn't do a Snowden in the first place is because the UK would have picked him up at the airport.

How are they breaching the sovereignty of other nations by asking for his extradition?

peddlelies

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Noble intentions go out the window when you only work for one side.

How can you publish information that you don't have? And even if they had similar information on Trump, what's the worst charge you can accuse them of, being biased like pretty much all the mainstream outlets? Plenty of them have ignored stories because it was damaging to "their side".

peddlelies

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I bet he was Wiki Leaking his pants when they charged in to drag him out.

Good one

Billy86

peddlelies wrote: »

Who was President when they released the Guantanamo Bay papers or what era was that US army helicopter killing those civilians and journalists from? Bush.

Wikileaks have only been dumping since around 2007, Pres Obama was in office 2008-2016. You're still butthurt over the last election, you can pull one out tonight safe in the knowledge that Assange has been arrested.

peddlelies wrote: »

So you're not going to state that what you said about releasing damaging info "on the other side" is incorrect. Morals, who needs them right? Along as they get the guy you don't like nothing else really matters. How morally astute.

What are you even talking about? Nobody ever said George Bush was a Russian asset.

seamus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So anyone can commit cross-border computer crime and have immunity?

There's a reason I specifically mentioned crimes against a government

Crimes in a more general sense are more complicated, especially when you take the Internet into account.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How are they breaching the sovereignty of other nations by asking for his extradition?

Typically one would expect that an extradition request is made in good faith - i.e. on the "merits" of the offence and in accordance with the extradition treaty in place between the two nations.

The US has a long history of demanding extraditions for crimes committed completely outside of their own jurisdiction, or crimes committed against the US government.

Of course when I mention "breaching sovereignty" I'm referring to the US government kidnapping people from foreign countries to be held in US prisons.

Billy86

AllForIt wrote: »

On the point made about Assange 'taking sides' does this mean to suggest that if Assange were to infiltrate the US by use of a 'traitor' then in the interest of balance it was not legitimate to do so unless he did the same to every other country on the planet including Russia and China, the UK etc. Which would be some feat.

How did he get to Mannning btw? Or did Manning go to Assange in the first place?

No, what it means is he became everything he claimed to stand against. Wikileaks have repeatedly refused to release leaks given to when when it involves Russia, despite claiming to be neutral and just releasing what was sent to them.

Instead of this, Assange on top of using these leaks for his own agenda rather than th wider public interest, has even taken to outright spreading lies and conspiracy theories on air.

Why take this clown seriously at face value anymore?

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

There's a reason I specifically mentioned crimes against a government

Crimes in a more general sense are more complicated, especially when you take the Internet into account.
Typically one would expect that an extradition request is made in good faith - i.e. on the "merits" of the offence and in accordance with the extradition treaty in place between the two nations.

The US has a long history of demanding extraditions for crimes committed completely outside of their own jurisdiction, or crimes committed against the US government.

For some reason you think this is unusual.

peddlelies

Billy86 wrote: »

What are you even talking about? Nobody ever said George Bush was a Russian asset.

Uh, I'm assuming he's talking about information released about Republicans and Democrats which I perceive to be correct now since he only seems to care about Trump winning the 2016 election.

Somewhat related, how did you and all the Russian conspiracy cult feel about Mueller's findings? :pac:

Missed that trip to the doctors unfortunately.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105691995&postcount=9122

ohnonotgmail

peddlelies wrote: »

Uh, I'm assuming he's talking about information released about Republicans and Democrats which I perceive to be correct now since he only seems to care about Trump winning the 2016 election.

Somewhat related, how did you and all the Russian conspiracy cult feel about Mueller's findings? :pac:

Missed that trip to the doctors unfortunately.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105691995&postcount=9122

what were his findings? nobody outside a very small group actually know what they were. If they did actually exonerate trump he would have given a copy to everybody in the country.

peddlelies

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what were his findings? nobody outside a very small group actually know what they were. If they did actually exonerate trump he would have given a copy to everybody in the country.

Glenn summed it up better I can

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1109201503418490880

ToBeFrank123

peddlelies wrote: »

Do you have problems comprehending things?

In 2016, yes. You stated they only release information damaging to one side, which in incorrect.



Likewise I'd imagine if they released emails on the Trump campaign only you'd be singing his praises and defending him now. It's horribly transparent that for you it's a hyper partisan stance solely because it was Clinton's emails that were dumped. Would Snowden still be a "weasel" in your eyes if he did what he did during the Trump administration? Have at it, I'm out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

The Iraq War documents leak is the disclosure to WikiLeaks of 391,832 United States Army field reports, also called the Iraq War Logs, of the Iraq War from 2004 to 2009 and published on the Internet on 22 October 2010. The files record 66,081 civilian deaths out of 109,000 recorded deaths. The leak resulted in the Iraq Body Count project adding 15,000 civilian deaths to their count, bringing their total to over 150,000, with roughly 80% of those civilians.It is the biggest leak in the military history of the United States,surpassing the Afghan War documents leak of 25 July 2010.

But no leaks about Russian or Iranian military operations in Syria. Odd that.

mcmoustache

peddlelies wrote: »

Somewhat related, how did you and all the Russian conspiracy cult feel about Mueller's findings? :pac:

The same way as about the winner of the upcoming world cup in Japan. The Mueller report still hasn't been released although Trump supporters would have you believe that they had read it themselves.

ohnonotgmail

peddlelies wrote: »

Glenn summed it up better I can

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1109201503418490880

you can sum it up whatever way you want. Wait until the report gets released. Come talk to me then.

peddlelies

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you can sum it up whatever way you want. Wait until the report gets released. Come talk to me then.

Won't change the facts that not a single American or anyone connected with the Trump campaign was charged with a conspiracy related to Russia. I'm sure the cognitive dissonance will sort itself out once you read Stone sent Wikileaks a direct message to Wikileaks on twitter. Oh the humanity!

Two years worth of swallowing absolute bollocks is a bitter pill to swallow, I get it.

Billy86

peddlelies wrote: »

Uh, I'm assuming he's talking about information released about Republicans and Democrats which I perceive to be correct now since he only seems to care about Trump winning the 2016 election.

Somewhat related, how did you and all the Russian conspiracy cult feel about Mueller's findings? :pac:

Missed that trip to the doctors unfortunately.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105691995&postcount=9122

I know as much about the findings of that investigation as you do... because the person Trump hired on the back of a 19 page job application letter about how he would shield Trump from prosecution has refused to release it. Not just to the public, but to any elected members of Congress with the power to impeach, including those on the relevant oversight committees. Given that this is the same person (William Barr) who helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal... Why do you think that is?

The other poster was also quite clearly and explicitly talking about Putin: well i suppose you will only ever have information on one side when you are employed by the other side. Clintons emails were hacked by Putin and passed on to wikileaks

I did get a laugh out of a (edit, typo) Trump supporter referring to others as a Cult though, so thanks for that.

I also noticed that you seem very familiar with some posters here despite supposedly only joining the website two weeks ago. Care to share your old username(s)?

The Enbalmer

Self-serving maggot.


Hides like a rat in a dungheap rather than face the music for his actions.


If there's any justice in the US he will be charged with treason after first being tortured to make him give up his wikileaks passwords and details of his collaborators.


He was always fond of telling people what they "must" do,now he "must" pay for his crimes at long last.

peddlelies

Billy86 wrote: »

I know as much about the findings of that investigation as you do...

I'm sorry, I thought I read this as a quote from Mueller's own report. Is it incorrect? Was it not the conclusions you were after? After all, to mention that you think Trump wasn't some Russian asset meant you should visit a doctor since it was such a crazy observation in your eyes.

But, but, the findings.

When the report comes out over the weekend it'll be, but, but the redactions.

rossie1977

Billy86 wrote: »

I also noticed that you seem very familiar with some posters here despite supposedly only joining the website two weeks ago. Care to share your old username(s)?

Someone A/Someone B

Kimbot

Billy86 wrote: »

I also noticed that you seem very familiar with some posters here despite supposedly only joining the website two weeks ago. Care to share your old username(s)?

rossie1977 wrote: »

NAMES REMOVED

MOD If you suspect someone of been a re-reg then report their post etc. Dont do it on thread!!

Itssoeasy

The only thing I can say having seen the video is “during the war...”

Rvsmmnps

peddlelies wrote: »

Won't change the facts that not a single American or anyone connected with the Trump campaign was charged with a conspiracy related to Russia. I'm sure the cognitive dissonance will sort itself out once you read Stone sent Wikileaks a direct message to Wikileaks on twitter. Oh the humanity!

Two years worth of swallowing absolute bollocks is a bitter pill to swallow, I get it.

Hilary and her crew were up to their necks with Russians also..

BeerWolf

Aegir wrote: »

The odd bit bit of rape here and there never hurt anyone I guess :rolleyes:

Curious how people so readily buy into obvious smear campaigns at a convenience notice.

mcmoustache

Rvsmmnps wrote: »

Hilary and her crew were up to their necks with Russians also..

I would be curious to know what you're talking about but I'm worried that you probably don't know either.

Manic Moran

Zorya wrote: »

Interesting speech

https://twitter.com/ComunicacionEc/status/1116272104180154368

Huh. So that's what it's like to have a composed, erudite President. It's been a few years for us, I had forgotten...

But, seriously, who the hell threatens the person keeping them safe? That's never going to go well.

peddlelies

Rvsmmnps wrote: »

Hilary and her crew were up to their necks with Russians also..

Nope, the hundreds of millions her charity received from Russians entities and other rogue nations were just good will gestures, it's a conspiracy theory to believe otherwise. :pac:

Billy86

peddlelies wrote: »

I'm sorry, I thought I read this as a quote from Mueller's own report. Is it incorrect? Was it not the conclusions you were after? After all, to mention that you think Trump wasn't some Russian asset meant you should visit a doctor since it was such a crazy observation in your eyes.

But, but, the findings.

When the report comes out over the weekend it'll be, but, but the redactions.

What you just quoted is not from Mueller, it is from the summary by the guy Trump hired on the back of a 19 page job application letter about how he would shield Trump from prosecution, and who has refused to release anything beyond his own summary. Not just to the public, but to any elected members of Congress with the power to impeach, including those on the relevant oversight committees. Given that this is the same person (William Barr) who helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal, trying to claim that has any legitimacy is a beyond a farce.

peddlelies

Billy86 wrote: »

What you just quoted is not from Mueller, it is from the summary by the guy Trump hired on the back of a 19 page job application letter about how he would shield Trump from prosecution, and who has refused to release anything beyond his own summary.

What I highlighted is a direct quote from the Mueller report. You can keep clinging to the narrative that Barr has totally hidden what the report really says, but you cannot deny the conclusion that Mueller found no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The goalposts tend to change quickly. The report will be released in a few days so no doubt you'll find something ethically questionable by some low level campaign aide in an attempt to persuade yourself that the rubbish talked about over the last two years was justified. I don't care care if people speculated or fell victim to rubbish on cable news, it's only those who arrogantly and smugly dismissed the other viewpoint I enjoy calling out.

Penn

Billy86 wrote: »

What you just quoted is not from Mueller, it is from the summary by the guy Trump hired on the back of a 19 page job application letter about how he would shield Trump from prosecution, and who has refused to release anything beyond his own summary. Not just to the public, but to any elected members of Congress with the power to impeach, including those on the relevant oversight committees. Given that this is the same person (William Barr) who helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal, trying to claim that has any legitimacy is a beyond a farce.

In fairness, that's Barr quoting the report from Mueller's team. Many have said that the interpretation or context in which that sentence appears would be key (eg. It states that members of the Trump Campaign didn't conspire or co-ordinate with members of the Russian Government, but that doesn't preclude external agents for both conspiring/co-ordinating), but Barr would be unlikely to falsely attribute a quote to the Mueller report.

mad muffin

He looked like he was on one hell of a trip…

Zorya

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1116362494757314560

Julian Assange's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, says "This sets a dangerous precedent... any journalist can be extradited for prosecution in the US for having published truthful information about the US"